Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing euo issues coverage, with 197 published articles analyzing euo issues issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Understanding EUO No-Show Consequences: When Discovery Rights Are Waived
In New York No-Fault Insurance Law, Examinations Under Oath (EUOs) represent a critical juncture where healthcare providers must respond appropriately or risk significant legal consequences. A recent Appellate Term decision demonstrates how failing to engage with EUO requests can result in the complete waiver of discovery rights, even when providers later attempt to challenge the requests’ reasonableness.
The Professional Health Imaging case illustrates a fundamental principle: you cannot ignore an EUO request and then later argue it was unreasonable. This ruling reinforces the pattern we’ve seen in similar Allstate EUO no-show cases, where courts consistently hold that non-participation forfeits the right to challenge discovery procedures. Healthcare providers must understand that EUO objections may be futile if not properly raised at the appropriate time.
This decision emphasizes the importance of timely and appropriate responses to insurance company requests, as silence effectively constitutes acceptance of the insurer’s position.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 51026(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
“Plaintiff failed to allege, much less prove, that it had responded in any way to the EUO requests at issue. Thus, it cannot raise any objection to the reasonableness of those requests in litigation (see e.g. T & J Chiropractic, P.C., 47 Misc 3d 130, 2015 NY Slip Op 50406; Metro Health Prods., Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 47 Misc 3d 127, 2015 NY Slip Op 50402 ), and any discovery relevant to the reasonableness of the EUO requests was not necessary for plaintiff to oppose defendant’s motion (see CPLR 3212 ; Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596 ; Palafox PT, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 144, 2015 NY Slip Op 51653 ; T & J Chiropractic, P.C., 47 Misc 3d 130, 2015 NY Slip Op 50406; Metro Health Prods., Inc., 47 Misc 3d 127, 2015 NY Slip Op 50402). Consequently, contrary to plaintiff’s further argument on appeal, there was no outstanding discovery warranting the denial of defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f).”
Key Takeaway
Healthcare providers who completely ignore EUO requests cannot later challenge their reasonableness in court. This waiver of objection rights also eliminates any basis for seeking additional discovery to oppose summary judgment motions, making it crucial for providers to respond appropriately to all insurance company requests from the outset.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2016 analysis, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations and EUO procedures may have been subject to regulatory amendments or updated interpretive guidance. Practitioners should verify current EUO notice requirements, objection procedures, and waiver standards under the most recent Insurance Department regulations and case law developments.
Related Articles
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
Keep Reading
More EUO issues Analysis
EUO No-Show: Attorney Affirmation Sufficient Despite Time Lapse Between No-Shows and Execution
Appellate Term reverses Civil Court, holding that an attorney's affirmation attesting to plaintiff's failure to appear at EUOs was sufficient despite.
Feb 25, 2026
EUO no-show – correct statement of law
Court ruling clarifies that insurers cannot enforce EUO requests sent more than 30 days after receiving claims, making late requests nullities under New York no-fault law.
May 22, 2021
EUO No-Show Defense: Summary Judgment Granted for Failure to Attend in New York
NY court grants summary judgment when claimant fails to attend EUO after proper mailing of scheduling letters.
Aug 19, 2010
No need to send letter to attorney
Recover Medical Services v Ameriprise: late EUO requests defeated dismissal for some bills, while the attorney-notice objection failed for three others.
Jan 19, 2018
65-3.5(b) discussed in the EUO context
New York's no-fault insurance regulations require insurers to request EUOs within 15 days of receiving a claim. Courts strictly enforce this timing requirement.
Nov 28, 2015
EUO no-show DJ is successful (for the most part)
Second Department affirms declaratory judgment for insurer after medical provider failed to appear for two examinations under oath, establishing material breach of no-fault policy.
Apr 30, 2014Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a euo issues matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
